- 6 OtDtt8. lBssill.
endy of the people and presbyters; and that the practice of the Church of Rome is not supported by tide or other panages of Scripture. 1. In the choice of Matthiss to the apostleship, (Acts i,) tile disciples chose two, and then one of these was cliosen by lot. And we have no ac- count of imposition of hands on him to make him an apostle. 2. In selecting the first deacons, (Acts vi,) they were also chosen or e/coted by the believers, and they were then appointed or consecrated by the apostles by prayer and imposition of hands. 3. Persons called pro- phet? and reachers, or pastors, in the church at Antioch, laid hands on Barnabas and Paul, when they were appointed to a particular work. Acts xiii, ]--4. As St. Paul speaks of the laying on of his hands, (2 Tim. i, 6,) 8o he makes mention of the imposition of hands by the presbytery or eidership. So the Rhemish annotators allow that the eiders joined with the apostle in the imposition of hands. The con- clusion is, that the presbyters of a place took a part in ordination, or indeed ordsined ministers themselves. 5. Hence Romanists them- selves allow of the priests or presbyters present to join the bishop or bishops in the ordination of elders. What else is this than the remains of the primitive custom of the apostolic and immediately succeeding age, during which presbyters were the ordainera, or they anff bishops jointly set apart persons to the sacred ministry ? It should be remembered' that consecration, or the mere imposition of hands, is the smallest part of Scriptural ordination, which consism of e.l?6on, e?zmination, process of trial or tn'obation, and the recognition in the candidltte of proper ministerial qualifications. And the official cognizance of these is roesfly, and necessarily placed in the hands of the people and presbyters. The mere ceremony of laying on of hands is nothing more than the formal recognition of a person as a minister who has furnished proofs to the laity and pastors that he is called to the minister's work, and therefore eligible thereto, and conse. quontly a proper person to be formally recognized as a minister. And even in performing this ceremony, in behalf of the church in primitive times, presbyters took as active and full a share as those called bishops. (4.) They furthermore maintain, "that in the Old Testament there was the high priest as chief, upon whose sentence every matter de- pended, and the other priests were inferior to him: therefore, in the New Testament, bishops are in the place of the high priests, and presby- ters as the inferior priests." To this we respond: 1. The high priest in the law was a figure of Christ, who is the High Priest of the New Testament, and chief Shepherd, 1 Peter, v, 4: and therefore this type being fulfilled in Christ, cannot properly be applied to the external hierarchy of the church. 2. If every bishop be this high priest, then they have lost one of their best arguments for the pope, whom they place as high priest in the church. 3. There may be an appropriate. difference of priority or office, among ministers of the gospel, without the princely dominion of the Church of Rome. 4. It is untrue that all thin? were governed at the will of the high priest, for the other priests and eldsrs were his assistants, and debated matters in council with him, and this was that ?anhedrim and council of which mention is made in 5ori?. Acta iv, 8, 23. Both the synagogue and afterward the church had this council or presb7tery, without whose counsel and con- seat nothing was done. 5. Jerome reason8 thus, that il ? Moses chose I 30*
�
